Kristof is not a thinker. His strong suit is reporting. If
he ever found himself in the marketplace of ideas he would be lost.

Today, Kristof is not crusading against something horrific.
He has offered a paean to philanthropic billionaires, like Ted Turner, Warren
Buffett and Bill Gates.

To keep it balanced he includes a couple of gratuitous
swipes at a billionaire named Trump whose eleemosynary instincts are, to
Kristof, underdeveloped.

Kristof thrills to the fact that billionaires have made
charitable giving cool. He is ecstatic that they are funding leftist causes—like
the United Nations.

The prospect of seeing all of those capitalists billions
funneled into the hands of leftist do-gooders excites Nicholas Kristof. Just
think of how much trouble they can cause for big business. Just think of how
much social justice they can engineer.

The mind boggles.

Kristof notes happily that Ted Turner’s billion dollar gift
to the United Nations has restored the prestige of the United Nations.

But, ask yourself this: what has the UN done lately? Kristof
does not raise the issue because he is gaga over the UN, but this same organization, its prestige raised by Ted Turner’s gift, has
recently recognized the legitimacy of Palestine. Lest we forget, the UN seems
often to be in the business of bashing Israel.

Were it not for the fact that New York City profits greatly
from having the UN in town, few would notice if it disappeared tomorrow.

If Kristof had practiced the intellectual virtue of consistency, he would have recalled one of his best columnar efforts,one in which he, in a
rare moment of lucidity, explained that the people of Haiti need more factories
and less charity.

Obviously, all of those charitable donations are not being and have not been invested in Haitian industry.

I don’t need to tell you how that’s working out for the
people of Haiti.

Today, Kristof devotes his column to the lame idea that Ted
Turner has made charitable giving cool again. Forgetting the great
philanthropists of the past, Kristof opines:

Tycoons
used to compete for their place on the Forbes and Fortune lists of wealthiest
people. If they did give back, it was often late in life and involved museums
or the arts. Tycoons used to compete for their place on the Forbes and Fortune
lists of wealthiest people. If they did give back, it was often late in life
and involved museums or the arts. They spent far more philanthropic dollars on
oil paintings of women than on improving the lives of real women.

Turner’s
gift helped change that culture, reviving the tradition of great
philanthropists like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Turner publicly began needling
other billionaires — including Bill Gates and Warren Buffett — to be more
generous. That was a breach of etiquette, but it worked.

Only someone as dense as Kristof would write a
sentence like: “They spent far more
philanthropic dollars on oil paintings of women than on improving the lives of
real women.”

Does Kristof really believe that billionaires collect “oil
paintings of women” instead of helping real women? Does he believe that
philanthropists who support the arts are to be condemned for not giving their
money to boondoggles like the United Nations? Does he not understand that
buying art is an investment? Does he want to explain to all of the female
artists whose careers are support by charitable donations that they are not
real women?

Does he really believe that the United Nations does yeoman work
supporting real women around the world? Will he explain how much it is
helping the women who are oppressed by Islamist cultures? Is it so distracted
by its hatred for Israel that it does not have the time or energy to help those
women? Does Kristof really believe that the best way to improve the lives of
real women is to give them handouts?

Obviously, Kristof did not think about what he was writing. In his columns, it’s a reversion to the mean.

If you ask why these billionaires like to give money to
leftist causes, the reason might lie in the fact that they can count on useful
columnists like Kristof to shower them with good press.

These people did not make fortunes by being stupid. They are
happy to enhance their reputation and shield themselves from the peasants with
pitchforks by buttering up the zealots of the mainstream media.

My misgivings notwithstanding, Kristof is a star columnist
in a newspaper that has seen better days. If you want to know why the New York
Times is in something of a death spiral, you should compare and contrast
Kristof’s praise of charitable billionaires with a recent article in a
reputable newspaper-- the Financial Times.

But, even opinion writers should know the facts and should
know better than to allow their fantasies to replace reality.

The FT reports the state of charitable giving. It may be
cool to give money to charity, but the truth is, charitable giving has fallen
off of the cliff.

The FT reports:

The
woes of the global charity
industry are deepening as donations – both smaller individual gifts
and philanthropy – continue to contract as demand for the services of
non-profit organisations keeps mounting.

Charity
officials and experts harbour little hope for a meaningful recovery in 2013.
Individual donations – the single biggest source of revenue for most charities
– have shrunk sharply in many western countries. Bigger gifts from
philanthropists and endowments have also slumped after the financial crisis
took its toll on their assets.

Also, the FT reports that: “…philanthropic giving in the US
has contracted for five straight years, from a total of $43bn in 2007 to $11bn
this year – the lowest since the list began in 2000.”

It may be “cool” to give money to charity, but, in reality,
a drop from $43,000,000,000 to $11,000,000,000 is huge. If it happened to your
portfolio you would fire your broker.

As for the United Nations, one of its least controversial
arms, UNICEF has been receiving less money: “Unicef, the UN children’s agency,
estimates that its income declined 7 per cent to $3.4bn in 2012.”

The moral of the story: when you write for today’s New York
Times you do not have to bother with the facts.